Method and system for identifying and discovering relationships between disparate datasets from multiple sources

ABSTRACT

A graph-based data cataloging system, product and method that structures expert knowledge and statistically driven data analytics into a system-based framework for finding and relating enhanced metadata on subject-relevant, curated datasets from disparate, externally held data sources is shown. Displayed across a knowledge graph of nodes of datasets linked by their metadata attributes, the system simplifies the search and retrieval of multiple datasets of relevance to a user&#39;s technical, content, and resource-driven needs.

FIELD OF THE PRESENT INVENTION

The present invention relates in general to technology fields, and in particular to data card and cataloging systems, as well as systems designed to link, display, and enable the searching of dataset metadata within a knowledge graph to help system users identify datasets relevant to their analytic needs.

BACKGROUND OF THE PRESENT INVENTION

In recent years, the proliferation of data driven approaches and technologies has led to an exponential growth in the quantity of structured and unstructured data available for exploitation. Yet little has emerged to identify data that is usable with a given technique and relevant to a given problem set. Digital catalogs of ready-to-use datasets are few and far between. Where they exist, dataset curation focuses largely on a dataset's structural attributes, their licensing rights, or on the fact they exist at all, minimizing the relative utility and usability of a dataset's content to basic crowdsourced keyword tags. Most curation efforts reflect the efforts of technically savvy curators with limited subject matter expertise compiling blog lists of URLs across social media and other data specific sites (e.g., Quora, GitHub, Reddit, Data Science Central). Where databases exist, whether in academia or elsewhere, they are built predominately on relational structures—inhibiting the ability to index and link datasets—and tend to reflect single subject matter expertise or types of data content providers.

Four distinct, but related challenges affect the development of capabilities to identify usable datasets of relevance.

Paradox of Data Searches—Despite the vast and growing stores of datasets, those that will simultaneously work with a user's chosen technological approach and provide the insight and detail of relevance to help with decision making are relatively few and far between. Possible solutions should enable users to find data of relevance in a timely manner, using processes that leverage expert knowledge in organizing information and semantic search techniques to optimize the relevancy of search results.

Content Quality—A dataset curation system is only as good as the quality of the datasets it makes searchable. As fake websites, news sites, journals, and accounts grow across connected networks, assuring the quality of datasets has become paramount to any search process. In any new approaches, traditional back end processes to identify and block fake sites, questionable metadata or malicious code, should be enhanced with a hybrid method of pattern recognition algorithms and human quality assurance editing to block or identify unsubstantiated claims, questionable evidence or data collection methodologies, or controversial or “biased” content to fully inform users of the choices before them.

Need for Multiple Datasets—Rarely does one dataset provide sufficient content on its own to fuel data driven insight. Most data projects need multiple datasets with interconnected content that are compatible to their technical approach. Current curation efforts created as blogs on media sites or within relational database structures do not provide the means to identify combinations of usable and relevant datasets based on common attributes. Emerging systems should take full advantage of graph databases, and develop indices to link datasets that are consistent with standard indexing practices in the library and curation sciences.

Ingest Costs—Data is not free. Even data that is open and public costs time, energy, and resources to Extract, Transform, and Load (ETL). In addition to data quantity and relevance, cleanliness, duplications, usability, and dataset content impact final costs and ultimately, the quality of any derived insight. Curation systems should provide methods to help users determine what combinations of datasets will best meet their needs before making their choices.

The development of graph databases, knowledge graph visualizations, and semantic searching and recommendation algorithms, among other machine techniques, provides a unique, novel foundation for data curation systems. Thus, there is a need for a technology solution that leverages these technologies along with subject matter and technical expertise into a system that enables its users to find datasets of direct relevance to their technical and content driven needs.

SUMMARY OF THE PRESENT INVENTION

This Summary of the Invention is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form that are further described below in the Detailed Description. This Summary is not intended to identify key features or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to be used to limit the scope of the claimed subject matter.

Disclosed are a system and accompanying products and methods to organize, display, and make metadata on datasets, referred to here as “metasets,” searchable within a knowledge graph data cataloging and curation framework. Further detailed are novel processes that enable users interacting with the disclosed system to find and match multiple, linked datasets of relevance to their approach, and to rapidly determine which combinations of dataset will best suit their needs.

The system first enables ingest, categorization, and enhancement of metadata from multiple, disparate, externally held datasets for display in the system's knowledge graph visual environment. Metadata from external datasets are augmented with additional attributes present on the system's data cards. Once enhanced, metadata information on each dataset is referred to as a “metaset,” or a collection of metadata information that reveals key decision making information about an external dataset.

Upon identification, metadata on datasets are fed through a hybrid system-based quality assurance process to establish the validity and authenticity of a data source before ingestion into, and enhancement within, the system. Verified, enhanced dataset metadata is filtered through the system's attribute indexing and cleansing process—a hybrid attribute indexing system that relates metadata attributes based on expert domain knowledge and system analytics to determine the usefulness and relevance of dataset content to subjects and topics, geographical, temporal, and technical points of reference. The system uses this indexing process to relate newly ingested metasets to metasets already stored in the dataset cataloging system. The indexed metasets are then made searchable to a user in the system's knowledge graph interface.

Within the system, users interact with a knowledge graph of metasets to search for query-related datasets. A user initiates a search to bring back a knowledge graph of metasets of dataset information. To choose metasets to display, the system uses a weighting index scale that considers dataset relevancy and popularity in relation to the user's query, geographical and temporal attributes, and technical specifications for using a dataset with different data driven approaches and technologies. The graphic interface also displays links between metasets nodes based on the number of metadata attributes that datasets share, enabling the user to rapidly discover combinations of datasets of interest. In alternate displays, users can view metasets related to their search query in the context of their geographical or temporal distributions, or add display layers that provide them with additional information on users, metrics, and use cases associated with their search query. Users can also sort metasets to explore and classify datasets by different metadata attributes, the relative relevancy or popularity of datasets, or by other statistically relevant classification schema.

To learn more about datasets represented in a given metaset knowledge graph display, users can scroll over links and nodes to reveal content directly related to core attributes of a given metaset node. Users can also click on nodes and links to reveal more detailed information.

From the display, users can also highlight multiple metasets to compare and contrast combinations of datasets that provide data and content coverage related to the user's problem set. Using the system's built in network algorithms, users can then explore how metasets nodes that are not directly linked to each other can be combined with others to provide more complete data coverage. The system may highlight paths to complete coverage based on network algorithms showing the shortest path between two nodes, the path reflecting the most shared metadata attributes or the least costly path, among other embodiments.

Before a user makes a final choice, the system creates a comparison matrix that allows the user to contrast datasets for download in the context of acquisition parameters that could affect the users dataset choice, including but not limited to dataset cost, number of records, licensing restrictions, data formats, update frequency, etc. The system also recommends other relevant or popular datasets that share similar attributes for consideration as well as other related data services including but not limited to data cleansing, data feed, analytic data tool, and data storage accessible within the system.

In a separate personalized page, users can access metasets and additional services available to them based on their subscription level. They may include, but are not limited to embodiments such as the ability to download and work with data from the data source, store projects and preferences, and access other content available to them. Services may also include features such as access to collaborative communities of users, recommended and newly added or popular datasets, and access to articles, training sessions, blogs and other content produced by the systems community of users, among others.

Further features and advantages of the invention, as well as the structure and operation of various embodiments of the invention, are described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings. It is noted that the invention is not limited to the specific embodiments described herein. Such embodiments are presented herein for illustrative purposes only. Additional embodiments will be apparent to persons skilled in the relevant art(s) based on the teachings contained herein.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The present invention will be better understood with reference to the appended drawing sheets, wherein:

The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated herein and form a part of the specification, illustrate the present invention and, together with the description, further serve to explain the principles of the invention and to enable a person skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the invention.

FIG. 1A shows a simplified process diagram of the invention environment highlighting how datasets are transformed into metasets and presented in knowledge graphs, according to an example embodiment.

FIG. 1B shows a simplified process diagram of the invention environment highlighting how datasets are transformed into metasets and presented in knowledge graphs, according to an example embodiment.

FIG. 2 shows a simplified process diagram of how example data sources are transformed into example extracted metadata, which are in turn displayed as example metaset nodes with attribute linkages between datasets, according to an example embodiment.

FIG. 3 shows a simplified process diagram for identifying and verifying datasets from external data sources before they are enhanced and displayed within the invention, according to an example embodiment.

FIG. 4A shows a simplified process diagram for cleansing and enhancing metadata attributes from externally held datasets into metasets stored within the system, according to an example embodiment.

FIG. 4B shows a continuation of the simplified process diagram for cleansing and enhancing metadata attributes from externally held datasets into metasets stored within the system, according to an example embodiment.

FIG. 5A shows a simplified process diagram of a metaset indexing, weighting and quality assurance process that prepares metasets for display in the system's knowledge graph environment, according to an example embodiment.

FIG. 5B shows an example visual mapping of how overlapping topics and subjects attributes can link disparate metasets together within the invention, according to an example embodiment.

FIG. 5C continues to show an example visual mapping of how overlapping geographical, temporal, metadata, and dataset property attributes can link disparate metasets together within the invention, according to an example embodiment.

FIG. 5D shows a continuation of the example visual mapping of how overlapping geographical, temporal, metadata, and dataset property attributes can link disparate metasets together within the invention, according to an example embodiment.

FIG. 5E shows a continuation of the example of visual mapping attributes.

FIG. 6A shows an example knowledge graph display of linked metasets returned from a search as well as the weighting scales used to determine which metasets are brought back as relevant to a search, according to an example embodiment.

FIG. 6B shows examples of alternative knowledge graph and metadata card displays—including different ways to sort metasets—that may be available in the system, according to an example embodiment.

FIG. 6C shows metasets by relevancy and metasets by geographic reference.

FIG. 7A shows an example knowledge graph display of user interaction that will reveal additional dataset and metadata information from knowledge graph nodes and links, including data card details, according to an example embodiment.

FIG. 7B shows a continuation of the example knowledge graph display of user interaction that will reveal additional dataset and metadata information from knowledge graph nodes and links, including data card details, according to an example embodiment.

FIG. 7C shows a series of simplified process diagrams detailing how a user could choose different combinations of metasets based on shared direct or indirect attribute linkages from knowledge graph visualizations, according to an example embodiment.

FIG. 7D shows a continuation of the series of simplified process diagrams detailing how a user could choose different combinations of metasets based on shared direct or indirect attribute linkages from knowledge graph visualizations, according to an example embodiment.

FIG. 8A shows a simplified process diagram of how a user may compare and contrast datasets within an acquisition matrix before final decision making, according to an example embodiment.

FIG. 8B shows a continuation of the simplified process diagram of how a user may compare and contrast datasets within an acquisition matrix before final decision making, according to an example embodiment.

FIG. 9 shows a simplified process diagram of processes and services available to the user from a personalized landing page, according to an example embodiment.

The features and advantages of the present invention will become more apparent from the detailed description set forth below when taken in conjunction with the drawings, in which like reference characters identify corresponding elements throughout. In the drawings, like reference numbers generally indicate identical, functionally similar, and/or structurally similar elements. The drawing in which an element first appears is indicated by the leftmost digit(s) in the corresponding reference number.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

The present specification discloses one or more embodiments that incorporate the features of the invention. The disclosed embodiment(s) merely exemplify the invention. The scope of the invention is not limited to the disclosed embodiment(s). The invention is defined by the claims appended hereto.

References in the specification to “one embodiment,” “an embodiment,” “an example embodiment,” etc., indicate that the embodiment described may include a particular feature, structure, or characteristic, but every embodiment may not necessarily include the particular feature, structure or characteristic. Moreover, such phrases are not necessarily referring to the same embodiment. Further, when a particular feature, structure, or characteristic is described in connection with an embodiment, it is submitted that it is within the knowledge of one skilled in the art to effect such feature, structure, or characteristic in connection with other embodiments whether or not explicitly described.

Numerous exemplary embodiments of the present invention are described as follows. It is noted that any section/subsection headings provided herein are not intended to be limiting. Embodiments are described throughout this document, and any type of embodiment may be included under any section/subsection.

II. Example Embodiments

FIG. 1 provides an outline of the different processes embodied in the invention, each of which are described in fuller detail in following subsections, according to an example embodiment. Embodiments relate to a network accessible computer-based dataset curation system and process that enables: the systematic verification and authentication 130 of datasets 120 that exist outside of the system before ingest; and, the ingest of metadata, enhancement of metadata attributes that may include topic/subject, geographic, temporal, technical, and other properties featured within an external dataset, and the recording of enhanced metadata attributes in unique collections of metadata datasets, or metasets, represented in system held data cards 140. Embodiments also relate to the systematic method of indexing, weighting and cleansing 150 of metadata attributes to establish relationships between enhanced metasets and the database of existing metasets already held within the system in preparation for visual representation 160. Embodiments are also related to system processes that enable the analysis of metadata related to a user's search for datasets within the system for the purposes of establishing and weighting nodes and linking them by metadata attributes through techniques familiar to those skilled in art of knowledge network theory. The embodiments also relate to graphic link and node displays 170 as well as alternate displays 180 that may include geospatial, temporal, histogram and other statistically based analysis that falls within the knowledge base of those skilled in the art of geospatial, temporal, and graph theory. Further embodiments relate to the application of network theory familiar to those skilled in the art to the analysis of links and identification of disparate potential paths between nodes that are not directly linked in a graph 190. Further embodiments relate to enabling the user's ability to compare and contrast the metaset attributes and benefits of multiple datasets in context of each other, and to weigh the inputs of other system users and system recommendations for alternate datasets before committing to any financial, licensing, or other data restrictions as defined by the owner of an externally held dataset. Additional embodiments are related to providing each system user with a personalized landing page where users can: track prior searches; search for and find new datasets; receive recommendations for new datasets based on a hybrid collaborative filtering and content based recommendations by subject matter experts; download authorized data for use with externally held analytic tools; store data and projects within the system; view and access other site content, and, collaborate with other system users.

Such embodiments may be implemented on a variety of environments that may include cloud based services, multiple computing devices, servers, storage, and network configurations and related applications and services to empower the system and processes described herein. Computing devices may include stationary or mobile devices, desktop computers, mobile computers or computing systems, notebook computers, tablet computers, mobile phones, wearable computers, or other types of mobile devices. Servers may be implemented in one or more computer systems, include one or more servers, and include any type of computing device described herein or that otherwise encompasses the capabilities of enabling the system functionality described herein. Computing devices and services may be coupled to networks, whether by wired links, wireless personal area network (PAN) links, Wireless LAN (WLAN) links, Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (Wi-MAX) links, cellular network links, Ethernet links, USB links or other available network linking systems. Data storage, including temporary, verified, and system dataset metadata stores, user profile data, attribute index and weighting data, payment data, may have the format of a relational database, graph based database, or other format, and may include one or more of any type of storage mechanism to store system data and metadata, including magnetic discs, optical discs, magnetic tapes, memory devices such as RAM or ROM, or any other suitable storage medium. System applications may be configured to be accessed from cloud based services, as enterprise level client-server, as a desktop application, or in any other configuration that facilitates system use with metadata from multiple datasets.

A. Example Embodiments of Data Flows

At its base, the invention described herein is designed to enable disparate users with different data needs to find datasets of value to their processes. Datasets here refer to collections of related sets of information composed of separate elements that can be manipulated by a computer. Datasets as represented here in the example embodiment can also contain data representing any domain of interest, any geographical or temporal frame, any technical or licensing parameters of note, and any other characteristics of import to a community of users.

FIG. 2 describes how data on datasets flows 200 through and fuels the core functions of the invention described herein. Data in the form of metadata—here defined as specific information that gives information about the dataset—is used to fuel the invention's systems, methods, and processes. Each set of dataset metadata, referred to as “metasets” herein, consists of metadata information in the form of attributes that describe key dataset characteristics of value to users.

Value in this context is derived from dataset attributes, or features, which may include the quality of the dataset, its relevance to the user in terms of content, topic or subject matter, geographic and temporal reference points, its technical properties, its licensing restrictions, its overall cost in terms of usage fees and time needed to prepare data for ingest into a chosen analytic process, and other features of relevance, according to an example embodiment.

The data related to a dataset remains stored at the data source and managed by the data owner. A link to source data from datasets may be made available to the user through the invention's user interface via URL, API, or other means to provide a data feed or data pipeline from the data source to the user, according to an example embodiment and subject to agreed-upon licensing and other data access terms.

Metasets can be ingested and enhanced 210 from any data source 205 accessible from a computer network. Metasets may reflect data held in open and publicly sourced datasets, government sourced datasets, library or academic datasets, privately sourced datasets, datasets sourced by data vendors, datasets sourced and maintained by users or administrators of the invention, or other sourced datasets, according to an example embodiment. Dataset content may include any topic or subject and any geospatial, temporal, or technical specificity of interest to users, according to an example embodiment. Datasets may be available in any and/or multiple structured, semi-structured, or unstructured formats—including but not limited to spreadsheet, database, or data feed formats, geospatial file formats, sensor formats, video or audio formats, imagery and visual formats, text or other computer accessible formats, according to an example embodiment.

Within the system, dataset metadata provided by the data owner—including dataset relevant information such as dataset name, dataset description, data format, dataset licensing restrictions, URLs, APIs or other means of accessing the dataset, and any other dataset information—is ingested and methodically enhanced 210 with additional system-relevant metadata that includes dataset content and technical attributes not available in the data source metadata. The invention indexes and weighs 220 the extracted and enhanced metasets 215 so they can be displayed in the context of other indexed and weighted metasets available within the system application. The system uses the database of indexed and weighted metasets to generate search query relevant knowledge graphs 225 and alternate displays within the user interface, according to an example embodiment. Users interface with multiple, related metaset entities in the form of links and nodes across system displays, including in knowledge graphs, geospatial maps, timelines, and within the context of other statistically relevant sorting functions available within the system. Linked metaset attributes are in turn used to enable multiple processes and functions within the system as described in further detail below, according to an example embodiment.

B. Example Embodiments of Processes to Identify and Verify Data Sources

FIG. 3 illustrates the methods and processes that are used to identify and verify datasets 300 before dataset metadata is fully ingested into the system described herein, according to an example embodiment. Critical to the overall integrity of the system, the process helps to ensure that dataset metadata loaded into the system leads users back to datasets that are relevant, authentic, legitimate, and devoid of malware, viruses, and/or any other versions of malicious code.

Candidate datasets identified as potential sources for metadata extraction and indexing within the invention can come from anywhere. They can be identified as potential new candidates by system users, data vendors or others 305 who are interested in having datasets featured within the invention, during automated scrapes of web sites 345, or by any other means. Once identified, system vetted users—such as Power Users 310, Subject Matter Experts 315, Data Vendors 320, or System/Database Administrators 325—who have received training in dataset metadata ingest load basic metadata into the system.

Users input basic metadata 335 available at the data source individually, by batch via API, or via other system approved data input techniques. Metadata may include dataset name, dataset source URL, available dataset formats, topic or subject matter tags, geospatial and temporal information, number of dataset records, licensing information and other commonly available metadata, according to an example embodiment. The system may also automatically collect available dataset metadata from scraping mechanisms such as system deployed bots and spiders 340, according to an example embodiment.

Once uploaded, the system verification process 350 compares the metasets of unverified dataset metadata held in a temporary data store 375 to the most recently updated version of the system's crowdsourced index 360 of datasets and data sources that have already been flagged by users or system administrators as “bad” or as needing a dataset “warning”. The system also compares the temporarily held metasets to the system's updated list of known bad IP and URL sites compiled and maintained by external sources. Datasets, IP addresses, and URLs that have been previously associated with verified claims of “fake” source data, unsubstantiated evidence or data claims, questionable evidence or data collection methodologies, concerns over bias, or other controversies are tagged with “warning” tags for display in the system's user interface. “Bad” datasets 355—defined as: 1) violating the system's data privacy, ethics, or code of conduct standards; 2) containing malware, Trojans or other malicious code designed to do harm to the system or its users; or 3) identified as fake aggregator, “click bait”, or other advertising oriented sites lacking original content—are tagged, deleted and blocked from further processing within the system, according to an example embodiment.

In a second verification process 365, candidate data source sites, URLs, metadata, available code, and data samples may also be checked for known and emerging security vulnerabilities and for compliance with existing and emerging cybersecurity standards such as the NIST Cybersecurity framework, TC CYBER, ISO 27001, ISO 27002, among others, according to an example embodiment.

The system then pushes a verification process results report to System or Database Administrators for review and anomaly resolution. Once authenticated and approved, the metasets are ready for full ingest into the invention for further processing as evidenced in the steps below, according to an example embodiment.

C. Example Embodiments of Processes for Enhancing Metadata

Once verified, the invention pushes the metasets through an enhancement process 400 to de-dupe and normalize metasets and their content using processes familiar to those versed in the art. The system first uses Natural Language Processing or other matching algorithms 405 based on metadata categories 420 to analyze and compare the incoming metasets 375 to those already stored within the system's databases of metasets 410, according to an example embodiment. The system then displays identical and potential matches to the user for review and resolution. Topic or subject tags from deduped metaset files 425 are standardized and compared to files in the Metaset Topic Database 430. The system then provides users with optional, popular additional topic or subject tags based on prior user tags and thesaurus-based matches 435. The system then compares and normalizes attribution tags from the Metaset Attribution Database 445 and provides the user with additional attribution tags for consideration 450. The user reviews potential duplicates, topic and attribution tags and inputs choices 455. Anomalies are pushed to the system administrator for final resolution 460. Metasets are then stored in the system's Enhanced Metaset Database 465 in preparation for indexing, according to an example embodiment.

D. Example Embodiments of Processes for Indexing, Weighting, and Assuring Quality of Metasets

FIG. 5 outlines an embodiment of the system's indexing, weighting and cleansing process. This process enables the system's capacity to provide metaset results that are most relevant to a user's dataset search parameters as well as additional system functions related to analyzing datasets based on their linked attributes, as described in greater detail in subsequent sections.

In this process, enhanced metasets 465 are indexed to the system's existing network of metasets 505 that have already been linked by common metadata attributes. To enable semantic linking between attributes, the system uses a two-step Natural Language Processing (NLP) based subject and topic indexing method 510. Here, each enhanced metaset is indexed to other metasets 515 by commonly linked semantic attributes—such as those found within thesauri or within domain specific taxonomies, ontologies, topic maps or other forms of domain specific meta maps available to, or developed by those familiar with the art. Metaset indexing is further extended by a hybrid approach that uses collaboratively filtered recommendations based on system usage and content-based recommendations derived from subject matter expert knowledge to semantically link metaset attributes between disparate domains of interest, according to an example embodiment.

FIG. 5a provides an example embodiment of overlaps between metaset content attributes tags. Here, a subject tag such as “Elections” 520 might be indexed to direct thesaurus 516 concepts such as “ballots”, “referendum”, “vote”, etc. 522. Extended mapping 518 might also link “Elections” to concepts such as “voter registration”, “political parties”, or “campaign financing” 524 that a subject matter expert would immediately recognize as relevant to the study of the subject of “elections”, according to an example embodiment. In another example embodiment of indexed attributes, a search related to “Economics” 526 might bring back direct metasets results related to “Finance”, “Trade”, or “Markets” attributes and extended metaset results related to “Labor”, “Politics”, or “Agriculture”. Likewise, searching for “Development” 528 related datasets, might result in datasets linked by direct attributes such as “growth” or extended attributes such as “Infrastructure”, according to an example embodiment.

Extended semantic linking might also result in the discovery of linkages and topic clusters between topic maps. For example, “Elections” 520 tags linked by subject matter experts to “Legislative Districts” might in turn be linked to a cluster of topic tags related to government or “administration” 530, which in turn might lead to metaset information related to “Development” 528, according to an example embodiment. In another embodiment, linking metasets and topic clusters such as those related to “Community” and “Labor” 532 or “Agriculture” and “Environment” might result in more contextual data relationship between “Economics” 526 and “Development” 528, according to an example embodiment. Such types of linked results may enable system users without specific subject matter expertise in an embodied area to find multiple datasets that provide greater subject matter context for research and analysis.

In FIG. 500, extended semantic links are also used in conjunction with standard indexing processes familiar to those versed in the art to relate metasets by other key metadata attributes within the system 535. Enhanced metasets are linked geographically to each other by a combination of common geographical indices, such as gazetteer files, latitudes and longitudes, and other common geo-coordinate indices as well as extended indices of semantically based geographical reference points available in the systems metadata attribute indices 540.

The metadata attribute indices also link metasets to each other with temporal metadata frames based on multiple temporal attributes, including but not limited to the date the dataset was last updated at the data source, the range of dates covered in the dataset content, or the date the metaset was last accessed, among other embodiments. Temporal frames may in turn be extended by semantically based time frames such as “21⁴ Century”, “World War II”, or “44^(th) President”, according to an example embodiment.

Metasets are also linked to each other based on matches of structured metadata attributes within the system that provide additional information about key technical and data management consideration of import to users. These may include but are not limited to attributes such as available dataset formats, dataset ownership, intellectual property and licensing information, dataset pricing, dataset update frequency, and other dataset metadata of relevance. Metasets are also linked to each other based on matches between physical properties of the datasets located at the data source. Metadata attribute matches in this embodiment may include mappings to matches in the number columns and rows within the dataset, column headers, data types, data structures, cell content types, and other technical information pertinent to users looking to combine multiple datasets.

FIG. 5b provides examples of how additional attributes related to geographical, temporal metadata as well as dataset metadata and dataset properties are framed within the system. An example embodiment of a geographic frame 542 shows how the system might index geographical matches based on names such as “Boston” 544, “Massachusetts”, or “United States” or with latitude and longitude information, zip codes, or with other geographical points of interest on a geographic map 546. Extended geographic indexing might also include “Boston” as a point of interest within a semantically based search for datasets with content on the “American Revolution” or “Massachusetts Legislative Districts”, according to an example embodiment.

Temporal frames 550 might likewise enable the indexing of metasets that share chronologically related attributes. For example, a date specific search 552 might be mapped on a timeline 554 with other related metasets. Temporally related metasets might be expressed in terms of the dates themselves or in terms of semantic linkages, such as “Christmas holiday season” or “Winter Solstice” in which the date is directly inferred 558. Extended temporal attributes might also index metasets based on additional inferred links, such as the date being part of a “Presidential Election Season” 560, according to an example embodiment.

Dataset metadata frames 562 and property frames 572, 574 enable the system to directly link and match metasets based on technical characteristics that may affect the implementation or management of data driven projects. For example, matching metasets based on Metadata frames, such as information about the frequency of updates, licensing issues, etc. 568 or on dataset property frames such as where data set columns contain similar data for analysis and merging 576, 577, 578 may produce results that allow the user to rapidly determine which datasets match their level of technical expertise, budget restrictions, content needs, or any other technical considerations important to their project, according to an example embodiment.

In FIG. 500, the system assigns weights 580 to determine which search related metasets results are returned. The system weights the results to determine the look of the display node based on the proportion of subject matter experts/power users who recommended the dataset as related to the query topic, and on the number of times that prior related search queries resulted in direct clicks through to the metaset data card. The system also uses the weighting schema 585 to separately determine and display the popularity of a dataset based on weighted count of usage statistics. The system further uses the number of attribute matches between metaset nodes to determine the weight of the link, according to an example embodiment.

Once weights are assigned, the system alerts system and database administrators to anomalies and errors for resolution and normalization 540 to assure that subject-predicate-object relationships matching metaset attributes to each other are consistent with the system's library science based classification standards. The system then pushes the indexed, searchable metasets back to the metaset creator—an approved subject matter expert, power user, data vendor, or data administrator—for a final quality assurance and editing process 590. System administrators and users review the metaset information, make changes or further enhancements as appropriate, and re-submit the metaset for indexing. Once errors are resolved and edits finalized 455, the system stores the searchable metasets in its searchable metaset data stores 465, according to an example embodiment.

E. Example Embodiments of Search-Based Displays of Metasets in Knowledge Graphs

FIG. 600 illustrates how the system uses the indexed metasets and weighting schema to display search results in the system's UX/UI, according to an example embodiment. Once a user initiates a search 630, the system uses different techniques such as keyword concept matching, natural language, fuzzy logic, fuzzy concept processing, n-gram, or other more advanced processing technique to query the searchable metaset database 595 and bring back related, relevant, and popular metasets results. It should be noted that these techniques may include the use of keyword, Boolean, semantic index searches, n-gram, as well as other techniques known to those familiar with the art. The system displays the top ranked or most recent metasets in a link and node based knowledge graph that visualizes metaset relevancy, metaset popularity, and matches between metaset attributes based on graphical, technical, or temporal attributes using visualization features such as, but not limited to, the size, shape, or color of nodes 605 and links 620, according to an example embodiment. In this example, metasets that are weighted as relevant based on any combination of data curator, SME, or power user tags and prior search queries of the metaset are represented by the size of the circle 610. The larger the circle, the more relevant the metaset is to the query. Likewise, metaset popularity in this example is represented by the intensity of the color of the node 615 as determined by a variety of usage statistics such as those listed in the example. The more that users have interacted with a metaset card, the greater the intensity of the node color. Link thickness in this example embodiment is determined by the number of shared attributes between metasets 625. The more attributes that metasets share, the thicker the link.

FIG. 6a provides examples of alternate metaset visualizations that may be available within the system UX/UI environment, according to an example embodiment. In one embodiment, the user may add layers 635 to the search results to find additional content. For example, a user layer may provide the user with links to the public user pages of other users who have interacted with metaset results 640. In another embodiment, users may add a layer that allows them to identify and get more information about metrics and measurements used with metasets to analyze outputs 650. Users may also layer in information and posting about business process use cases that relate to metasets in a separate example 645. Additionally, users may be able to layer in results to separate search queries to examine whether any links exist between attributes 655.

Users may also choose to visually display search results through any number of alternate data visualizations available to those familiar with the art. Such visualizations may include any algorithmically relevant sorting displays such as sorting by relevancy 670, as exampled in one embodiment. Other data visualization may include displaying metasets by geographic 660 or temporal references 665, or other visual display that are suited to providing users with additional capability to find and discover metasets of relevance to their searches, according to an example embodiment.

F. Example Embodiments for Exploring and Combining Datasets in Knowledge Graphs

FIG. 700 illustrates how users navigate through the system's UX/UI to explore dataset content from varying displays of metaset nodes. In the example embodiment of a knowledge graph displaying results related to “elections” shown here, a user might roll over a metaset node to reveal key information about the dataset 705 such as the dataset name, its geographical coverage, a short description of its contents, or other key metadata information available on metaset data card, according to an example embodiment. User might also roll over the links between datasets to reveal key shared attributes 715. Double clicking on a metaset may link the user to the content of a metaset data card 710, which may include all of the enhanced metaset information the dataset as well as links to the data associated with the metaset that is available at the data source 720, according to an example embodiment.

FIG. 7a illustrates example embodiments of how users might group metasets nodes and links to explore how different metaset combinations could help assure more complete and relevant data coverage. The first example embodiment illustrates how users might explore paths between two nodes that have been identified within the system as “popular”—as visually exemplified by the intensity of the node color—or as “relevant”—as visually exemplified by the size of the node—to the user's search query. Such “recommended” 725 combinations could help provide the user with confidence that the data reflects common knowledge to those with experience in the subject of content and is more reliable to use, according to an example embodiment. User may also choose to explore novel metaset paths that incorporate data from less cited (represented herein as smaller nodes) or less used (represented herein as lighter colored nodes) datasets, such as those embodied in the second example 730. Links between metasets serve to help the user identify potential attribute specific search areas and to increase the likelihood of correlations of note, according to an example embodiment.

Using network theory, the system also enables users to look for linking paths between unlinked nodes, enabling user to discover and explore datasets across any linking metadata attributes available within the system 735. This functionality can serve multiple user purposes, including but not limited to identifying different combinations of data that share multiple subject matter or technical attributes, are most cost effective, or work best with the user's suite of analytic tools, or any other factors of importance to the user identified in the system's metadata on datasets, according to an example embodiment.

G. Example Embodiments of Choosing Datasets

FIG. 800 illustrates the embodiment of how system processes may facilitate a user's ability to choose among seemingly similar dataset options before investing resources into any one. In an example embodiment, once a user chooses metasets to explore 805, the system may summarize the shared attributes 810 between the chosen datasets.

The system may also create a confusion matrix 815 that allows users to compare metadata on datasets available in the system—including metadata such as dataset download cost, number of available records, licensing terms, data formats, etc.—to determine the best combination that matches the user's technical skill level, financial resources, time to exploitation limitations, or other key considerations that typically fall into a user's decision making process on whether to use a particular dataset. The comparison matrix may also include an embedded data acquisition calculator, akin to a mortgage calculator, that enables the user to consider the factors that determine the resource and time costs to ETL (Extract, Transform, and Load) a given dataset and prepare it for ingest into the user's analytic tools of choice, according to an example embodiment.

The system may also provide the user with a summary of reviews on the chosen datasets as well as recommendations for other datasets that are similar 820. Upon checkout 825, the system may also offer the user additional data services, including but not limited to data cleansing, data fusion, data feed, data storage, and access to external analytic tools compatible with the user's chosen datasets 830, according to an example embodiment.

User purchases are recorded in the system's secure payment processing applications 835. Security is preferably in place to protect payment processing, including, but not limited to 256 bit, 2048 bit, and SSL encryption to meet common modern bank security measures. This may include the use of other known encryption technologies, including RSA-2048, asymmetric public key encryption, and/or symmetric encryption. Secured payment methods of users and their user profiles 840 are updated to enable to access to the data download interface attached to the system metaset databases 850. Once a user reads and signs all relevant licensing, and data usage and policy agreements 845, they are able to access and download the data from the data owner's externally held data stores, according to an example embodiment.

H. Example Embodiments of Working with Datasets

FIG. 900 provides an example embodiment of how a system user may interact with different functions and processes within the system, and how a user may download user-accessible data to other systems for further processing. Within an embodiment of a personalized landing page 905, a user may view or download data to which they have access 910. A user may also receive recommendations on datasets of interest based on their prior activity with metasets 915 as well as recommendations on newly added or popular metasets with the systems community of users 920. From the landing page, users may also initiate new metaset searches 925 to bring back new result 930 viewable and searchable with the full functionality described herein, according to example embodiments. Users may also store personal projects they produce with data from the system ingested into analytic systems approved for use within the system's interface 935. From this function, users may also keep projects private, share them with the system's community of users, or share URL links with other services and applications outside of the system 940. Users may also access and collaborate with the system's community of users via text messaging 940 or within public or private working group services available within the system 950, view their personal profile and settings 960, or contact system support 965. User may also use their personal landing site to export 970 authorized data from the system to externally located tools, services, or systems 975.

It should be understood that, after the system of the present invention returns results of a search, which may then be filtered or refreshed based on new input criteria, the user is always provided the option to return to his or her original search result set if they do not like or need the filtered result set. As such, any user may always trace his or her way back to the original search with minimal effort.

In short, it should be understood that the present invention includes a method for the organization, relating, and distribution of datasets from multiple sources via a computer comprising: connecting the computer to a metaset database, the metaset database containing datasets of metadata grouped into metasets according to specific criteria; the computer attributing standardized categories to the metasets, forming indexed searchable metasets; a user entering search criteria to a search field disposed on a platform in communication with the searchable metaset database; the computer searching the metaset database for metasets pertaining to the search criteria; the computer displaying identical and potential matches to the user for review in the form of metaset data cards as results; the computer displaying the top ranked or most recent metasets in a link and node-based knowledge graph that visualizes metaset relevancy, metaset popularity, and matches between metaset attributes based on graphical attributes such as the size, shape, and color of nodes and links between nodes; the user licensing at least one selected metaset displayed on the knowledge graph; the knowledge graph digitally displaying one node per matched metaset; and, the knowledge graph digitally displaying at least one node link disposed between nodes.

Having illustrated the present invention, it should be understood that various adjustments and versions might be implemented without venturing away from the essence of the present invention. Further, it should be understood that the present invention is not solely limited to the invention as described in the embodiments above, but further comprises any and all embodiments within the scope of this application.

The foregoing descriptions of specific embodiments of the present invention have been presented for purposes of illustration and description. They are not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the present invention to the precise forms disclosed, and obviously many modifications and variations are possible in light of the above teaching. The exemplary embodiment was chosen and described in order to best explain the principles of the present invention and its practical application, to thereby enable others skilled in the art to best utilize the present invention and various embodiments with various modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated. 

We claim:
 1. A method for the organization, relating, and distribution of data sets from multiple sources via a computer comprising: connecting the computer to a metaset database, the metaset database containing datasets of metadata grouped into metasets according to specific criteria; the computer attributing standardized categories to the metasets, forming indexed searchable metasets; a user entering search criteria to a search field disposed on a platform in communication with the searchable metaset database; the computer searching the metaset database for metasets pertaining to the search criteria; the computer displaying identical and potential matches to the user for review in the form of metaset data cards as results; the computer displaying the top ranked or most recent metasets in a link and node-based knowledge graph that visualizes metaset relevancy, metaset popularity, and matches between metaset attributes based on graphical attributes such as the size, shape, and color of nodes and links between nodes; and the user licensing at least one selected metaset displayed on the knowledge graph.
 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: the knowledge graph digitally displaying one node per matched metaset; and the knowledge graph digitally displaying at least one node link disposed between nodes.
 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the node links on the knowledge graph are represented with a line that varies in visual proportion to represent the number of attributes shared between nodes representing metasets.
 4. The method of claim 2, wherein nodes on the knowledge graph are represented visually to represent the relevancy of a node representing a metaset to a query, and the popularity of a node representing a metaset to a query.
 5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: the computer varying the displayed nature of the at least one node link and nodes proportionally to their popularity and relevance of their representative metasets.
 6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: the computer alerting system and database administrators to anomalies and errors of datasets for resolution and normalization to assure that subject-predicate-object relationships matching metaset attributes to each other are consistent with the system's library science-based classification standards.
 7. A method for identifying and discovering relationships between disparate datasets from multiple sources via a computer in communication with a metaset database comprising: the computer receiving datasets metadata, the metadata expressing attributes of data; the computer evaluating datasets for relevance, authenticity, and legitimacy; the computer isolating and removing malware present within the datasets; the computer isolating and removing malicious code within the datasets; the computer organizing the datasets into metasets which are configured to be associated via temporal attributes, geographical attributes, technical attributes, and search attributes; the computer de-duping the metasets; normalizing the metasets with Natural Language Processing, n-grams, and other matching algorithms based on metadata categories compared against those of previously stored metasets within a metaset database; the computer standardizing the attribute tags of the metasets with a metaset attribute database of the metasets with a metaset topic database, attributing standardized topic, geographic, temporal, and technical categories to the metasets, forming indexed searchable metasets; the computer pushing the indexed, searchable metasets back to the metaset creator for a final quality assurance and editing process; system administrators and users review the metaset information, make changes or further enhancements as appropriate, and re-submit the metaset for indexing; the computer storing the indexed searchable metasets in its searchable metaset database; a user entering search criteria to a search field disposed on a platform in communication with the searchable metaset database; the computer searching the metaset database for metasets pertaining to the search criteria; the computer using keyword concept matching, natural language, fuzzy logic, fuzzy concept, n-gram, and other processing to query the searchable metaset database and return related, relevant, and popular metasets results; the computer displaying identical and potential matches to the user for review in the form of metaset data cards as results; the computer displaying the top ranked or most recent metasets in a link and node based knowledge graph that visualizes metaset relevancy, metaset popularity, and matches between metaset attributes based on graphical attributes such as the size, shape, and color of nodes and links between nodes; the computer providing the user with optional, popular additional tags/categories based on prior user tags, thesaurus-based matches, and library science-based classifications; the computer assigning weights to the matched datasets based on the reputation of the subject matter expert/power user content who recommended the dataset as related to the search criteria and the frequency of prior searches for the search criteria resulting in direct click-throughs to the metaset data card; the computer representing the metaset data cards in the form of connected nodes on a knowledge graph; wherein the weights assigned to the metasets determine the size, shape, and color of the display node on the knowledge graph; the computer using weighting schema to separately determine and display the popularity of a dataset based on weighted count of usage statistics; wherein the computer uses the number of attribute matches between metaset nodes to determine the weight of the link shown in the knowledge graph between nodes; the computer alerting system and database administrators to anomalies and errors for resolution and normalization to assure that subject-predicate-object relationships matching metaset attributes to each other are consistent with the system's library science based classification standards; the computer framing the attributes of geographical metadata based on names of geographical locations; the computer framing the attributes of geographical and temporal metadata based on coordinates; displaying the framed attributes on a geographic map; the computer framing the attributes of temporal metadata by indexing metasets that share chronologically related attributes; wherein a parameter of the framing of the attributes of temporal metadata is defined by a date range; the computer visually representing the metasets, employing nodes varying in graphical representation; wherein the node links are represented with a line that varies in visual proportion to represent the number of shared meta set attributes; wherein nodes are represented visually with symbols that change in size, color, or intensity of color to represent the relevancy of a node representing a metaset to a query; wherein nodes are represented visually with symbols that change in size, color, or intensity of color to represent the popularity of a node representing a metaset to a query; wherein the node links are represented with a line that varies in representation proportional to the number of attributes shared between the nodes representing linked metasets; wherein representations of relevancy of a node and popularity of a node are represented differently from each other within a knowledge graph; the user exploring paths between nodes shown as ‘popular’ to the search criteria, depicted by proportional changes in the visual representation of nodes within the knowledge graph; the user exploring paths between nodes shown as ‘relevant,’ depicted by the metaset's relation to the search criteria, exemplified by the nature of the graphical representation of the node within the knowledge graph, which is proportional to the relevance and popularity of the metaset represented by the node; and the user optionally exploring how one or more metaset nodes can provide novel paths to link metaset nodes that are not directly linked in a knowledge graph.
 8. The method of claim 7, further comprising: the user adding layers to the results to find additional content; the user integrating layers from prior queries of search criteria to examine the potential of links present between attributes; the computer grouping metasets nodes and links in a variety of combinations; and the user exploring how different metaset combinations could help assure more complete and relevant data coverage as it relates to the search criteria.
 9. The method of claim 7, wherein the attributes expressed in the metadata include: size, location, tags, and temporal data.
 10. The method of claim 7, wherein enhanced metasets are linked geographically to one another by a combination of common geographical indices, such as gazetteer tiles, latitudes and longitudes, zip codes, and other common geo-coordinate indices as well as extended indices semantically based geographical reference points available in the systems metadata attribute indices; the computer framing the attributes of geographical metadata based on zip codes; and the computer using the geographic attributes to frame the display of nodes related to a search within the knowledge graph.
 11. The method of claim 7, wherein search criteria includes keywords, time periods, seasons, and geographical ranges.
 12. The method of claim 7, wherein enhanced metasets are linked temporally to one another by a combination of common timeline data, including proximal time, day, month, and year relations, as well as extended indices of semantically based temporal reference points available in the system's metadata attribute indices; and the computer using the temporal attributes to frame the display of nodes related to a search within the knowledge graph.
 13. The method of claim 7, wherein the more attributes that metasets share, the thicker the link between the nodes representing the metasets on the knowledge graph; and wherein a change in the number of shared attributes results in a proportional visual change in the representation of the link between the nodes representing the metasets on the knowledge graph.
 14. The method of claim 8, wherein enhanced metasets are linked geographically to one another by a combination of common geographical indices, such as gazetteer files, latitudes and longitudes, and other common geo-coordinate indices as well as extended indices semantically based geographical reference points available in the systems metadata attribute indices; and the computer using the geographic attributes to frame the display of nodes related to a search within the knowledge graph.
 15. The method of claim 8, further comprising: the computer framing the attributes of geographical metadata based on zip codes; and the computer using the geographic attributes to frame the display of nodes related to a search within the knowledge graph.
 16. The method of claim 8, further comprising: the user selecting at least one metaset relevant to search criteria; and the user purchasing a license for use of the at least one metaset. 